Monday, December 15, 2008

According to the press the Dalai Lama said sex invariably spells trouble. Actually what he said (in part) was, "Sexual pleasure, sexual desire, actually I think is short period satisfaction and often, that leads to more complication. Too much attachment towards your children, towards your partner (is) one of the obstacle or hindrance of peace of mind." He also said celibacy was good. This made the news. So I wrote about that.

I agree Lauren. Ignoring or detaching is not the same as non-attachment. Acknowledgment of that to which one is not attaching is a necessary step. And acknowledgment implies involvement and actually seeing and experiencing things as they are. It is a subtle but important distinction.

" I would only say that I've found that what's truly most important to most people is to live as stable a life as possible. If you understand that you want that, then sex has to be handled carefully. It pushes a whole lot of buttons,"

I would add that if two people are truly free and make a committment to have sex and and accept all the responsibilities that follow, then this free committment is more natural than the repression and ignorance of sexual energy.

As far as the mentioned attachments to children and spouses/partners - this attachment is a great opportunity for helping them and seeing into the nature of attachment itself. So if the Dalai Lama is happy with his situation that's wonderful but I don't believe sexual abstinance is required for peace and happiness.

You mean, like the Shakers? Doesn't seem to have been a problem in Asia.

Taking potential points of attachment out of the picture (i.e. isolating in a misty temple) does not mean you've overcome the attachments.

Just as sitting is creating a quiet space in our life so we can better perceive who we are, a temple is creating a quiet spot in the world so that we can better perceive things. Putting away the Blackberry, the television, and the Ipod is a good thing, even if it doesn't immediately lead to freedom from attachment.

Seems to me that one can have a sexual relationship, be married, have kids etc without attachment, if one defines "attachment" correctly as grasping or clinging to that which is destined to change and die. I accept the transience of my loved ones, including my children. When relatives die, I don't get upset, I don't ask why, I simply let go.

As for sex as an impediment to enlightenment - maybe it's just me, but I find that sex can be a very simple and powerful lesson in non-self. In that moment of orgasm, the self is temporarily obliterated. Sex, in my experience, teaches surrender of ego, as does the experience of giving birth, when you must give up all illusions of control and allow the primal force of life to simply move through you and use you as a vessel.

Short answer about "then what the heck is polyamory anyway": it's all about love, not (strictly) sex. Thus the use of the word "amour" (love). Pure promiscuity would be called "swinging" or "open marriage" etc.

We polyamorists know full well that you get emotionally involved with people you fuck; we just choose to get involved with, and to allow and celebrate our partners to get involved with, more than one person at the same time.

"it's all about love, not (strictly) sex. ""We polyamorists know full well that you get emotionally involved with people you fuck; we just choose to get involved with, and to allow and celebrate our partners to get involved with, more than one person at the same time."

Do you have any fucking rules? If one of your partners has many lovers is this a problem as far as jealousy or health issues? How do you separate the love emotion from the material world? When I was in the arab world, I thought it was real cool that the rich guys had multiple wives, but that was well organized. This polyamori seems like love gone wild -)

Rich: that's up to the individual cases. For some people jealousy will be a big issue, for others not so much. The polyamory ethos only rejects doing stuff hidden —people will set the rules of the game clearly before playing.

For a concrete example, my wife somehow feels bad about seeing me with other women, but not with men; so I'll not cuddle a girlfriend in front of her, but will do a boy. On my side I don't feel jealous at all, so she has carte blanche.

I am a regular reader of both of your blogs as well as a fan of your first two books. I look forward to Zen/Chocolate (and love the new cover art).

In all the time I have been reading your blogs, you have never really written anything that made me jump on the keyboard to respond, until now. In one of your responses to your most recent suicide girls article you wrote:

"But just to be nitpicky, Buddhism generally doesn't involve mantras. Actually, I don't know if Tibetan Buddhism uses them. They might. But other forms of Buddhism don't usually use mantras except as passing references. For example, in Zen, the Heart Sutra closes with a mantra. But most Zen Buddhists ignore the mantra part."

You have written three books about Buddhism and you don't know if Tibetans use mantras?! You've been to Zen centers all over America and yet you claim that "most zen Buddhists ignore the mantra part.' That mantra is the pith of the whole tradition and I have yet to visit a center which ignores it.

Do you not think that it is important for a teacher of Buddhism to be well versed in the entire tradition and not pigeon-hole himself so narrowly?

In the past you have come off as arrogant, funny, a bit childish, very talented and very human. Until this post, you have never come off as dumb.

Remember that Dogen went to China to broaden his practice by exposing himself to another culture's ways of doing things. Do you not think this is a valuable example to follow?

"Do you not think that it is important for a teacher of Buddhism to be well versed in the entire tradition and not pigeon-hole himself so narrowly?"

Doko, the quick answer is...NO.Brad thinks his tradition / sect / teacher is the bestest and sees no reason to study others. Very narrow. His insight is ok as far as it goes (& I share your own positive opinion of Brad's books and much of what he writes here) but it doesn't go very far.

I was just reading some Bodhidharma relating to this precept. He said:

Once you see your nature, sex is basically immaterial. It ends along with your delight in it. Even if some habits remain’, they can’t harm you, because your nature is essentially pure. Despite dwelling in a material body of four elements, your nature is basically pure. It can’t be corrupted.

No. But nearly all of the classic chan masters were well versed in the buddhist sutras and many even taught other forms of buddhism depending upon the mindset of their students. Zen isn't about intellectualism, but neither is it about being ignorant and narrow-minded.

I was just wondering how fast my own shikantaza practice would dry up if I wasn't also suplimenting it with the study of sutras and histories. (And not just within the varied Buddhist traditions, but outside as well).

I even noticed that you have been mentioning Hakuin on your own blog. That's all I'm talking about, a little broadening of the horizon beyond the good old Shobogenzo.

I too think "expert" is about this close to being a dirty word. However, there is a difference between "beginners mind" (good) and "the mind of the average undergraduate at the beginning of an intro to Buddhism course" (not so good).

I bet Brad could tell you us sorts of fun facts about Godzilla AND Ultraman or about Frank Zappa AND Gene Simmons. But shikantaza AND vipassana, or Dogen AND Shantideva?

It's because I am so fascinated by what Brad does bring to the table, that I get a little disappointed when he doesn't bring his A game.

Brad is a supposed Buddhist teacher that brags about not knowing basic facts about Buddhism. What else did anyone expect? And is he seriously stupid enough to think that sexual repression is why the Mumbai attacks happened? That anybody gives credence to this man reflects really sadly on the state of western Buddhism. anya_baranova@hotmail.com

it's that word 'misuse'If sex could just be sexshikantaza is 'just sitting' if only there was a term for 'just sex' and a practice of 'just sex' to followbut sex is not 'just sex'I don't know that it can ever be 'just sex' hence 'don't misuse sex'

It always makes me sad--that sex can't just be sexI'd love to 'take the backward step' and find a way to explore sex prior to conceptualization But I don't think this is possibleSex--the layers and layers that cover youwe will never know your nakedness no matter how many clothes we take offSuch a shame

"For a concrete example, my wife somehow feels bad about seeing me with other women, but not with men; so I'll not cuddle a girlfriend in front of her, but will do a boy. On my side I don't feel jealous at all, so she has carte blanche."

That's very considerate of you. It always comes down to understanding and accepting the consequences (karma) of your actions.

The great thing about Buddhism is you can practice it no matter what your ideas and opinions are about it or the teachers.

But I would entreat folks to heed the description of zen by Thomas Merton: it is to religion as tennis is to mathematics.

If any person has a good enough game that they can derive benefits in real life, including the continued cultivation of skill for promoting and practicing good,loving-kindness, generosity, compassion and wisdom, that person's worth attention, even if they can't find their socks.

If any person has a good enough game that they can derive benefits in real life, including the continued cultivation of skill for promoting and practicing good,loving-kindness, generosity, compassion and wisdom, that person's worth attention, ...

And even if they've got a lousy game in this regard they still merit our attention, actually...